Free Traffic Legal Advice

The Notice to Keeper (NtK) is not PoFA compliant and therefore they cannot transfer liability from the unknown (to them) driver to the known Keeper. There is no "period of parking" stated on the NtK which means that MET have not complied with PoFA 9(2)(a).

Any initial appeal is going to be rejected so don't waste much effort on this. After it is rejected, you will have an opportunity to appeal to POPLA where you can go into the detail of why there is no Keeper liability and quote relevant, persuasive legal precedent at them.

There is no legal obligation on the known keeper (the recipient of the Notice to Keeper (NtK)) to reveal the identity of the unknown driver and no inference or assumptions can be made.

The NtK is not compliant with all the requirements of PoFA which means that if the unknown driver is not identified, they cannot transfer liability for the charge from the unknown driver to the known keeper.

Use the following as your appeal. No need to embellish or remove anything from it:

Quote

I am the keeper of the vehicle and I dispute your 'parking charge'. I deny any liability or contractual agreement and I will be making a complaint about your predatory conduct to your client landowner.

As your Notice to Keeper (NtK) does not fully comply with ALL the requirements of PoFA 2012, you are unable to hold the keeper of the vehicle liable for the charge. Partial or even substantial compliance is not sufficient. There will be no admission as to who was driving and no inference or assumptions can be drawn. MET has relied on contract law allegations of breach against the driver only.

The registered keeper cannot be presumed or inferred to have been the driver, nor pursued under some twisted interpretation of the law of agency. Your NtK can only hold the driver liable. MET have no hope at POPLA, so you are urged to save us both a complete waste of time and cancel the PCN.

If you want to understand why a judge deemed that not stating a "period of parking" other than a single observation time or timestamp, have a read of this:

Brennan v Premier Parking Solutions (2023)

So, no PoFA compliance to be able to hold the Keeper liable and no evidence that a contract was formed with the driver.

So, do a search of other POPLA appeals on the forum to get an idea of how to put it together and the format. When you have something you think is ready, show us here and we will advise. You have 33 days from the date of the appeal rejection to submit your POPLA appeal.

The main points will be the fact that the driver is not identified and the NtK is not compliant with PoFA paragraph 9(2)(a) because there is no "period of parking" stated. Relevant case law is Brenna v Premier Parking Solutions (2023) where the judge stated that a single timestamp is not evidence of a "period of parking" and therefore the NtK was not PoFA compliant and the Keeper cannot be liable.

You can then also include the fact that the ground markings are ambiguous and cause confusion with the slightly faced line on the right being visible. Also throw in a requirement that puts them to strict proof that they have a valid contract flowing from the landowner that authorises them to issue PCNs in their own name at the location.

Your POPLA draft is on the right track and already covers the essential points, but I’d recommend tightening the language a little, so it reads more like a structured legal submission rather than a complaint letter. POPLA assessors tend to prefer clear, numbered grounds rather than commentary. Here’s a refined version of what you’ve drafted:

Quote

I am the registered keeper of the vehicle. I deny any liability for this parking charge and appeal in full.
The operator bears the burden of proof. They must establish that a contravention occurred, that a valid contract was formed between the operator and the driver, and that they have lawful authority to operate and issue Parking Charge Notices (PCNs) in their own name.

Accordingly, I put MET Parking Services to strict proof of the following:

1. Failure to Comply with PoFA 2012 – No Period of Parking Specified

The Notice to Keeper (NtK) does not comply with Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Paragraph 9(2)(a), which requires that a “period of parking” be specified.

MET Parking has only provided a single timestamp (16:57 on 21 June 2025) and vague wording about “the period of parking immediately prior to that time”. A single timestamp is not a period. This has been confirmed in the persuasive appellate case of Brennan v Premier Parking Solutions (2023) [H6DP632H], where the judge held that a single observation time cannot evidence a “period of parking” and thus the NtK was not PoFA-compliant.

Because the NtK is not compliant, MET cannot transfer liability to the keeper. The operator’s repeated assertions that their NtK is PoFA compliant do not make it so.

2. No Contract Could Have Been Formed – No Period of Parking Evidenced

The operator has failed to evidence any period of parking, instead relying on a single timestamp to justify the charge. This is completely inadequate and fails both the legal and contractual standards.

The operator has ignored the minimum consideration period that must be allowed under the Private Parking Single Code of Practice, section 5.1. That section states that operators must allow a reasonable consideration period for the driver to find the terms, read them, and either decide to accept and park or leave. This period is defined as a minimum of five minutes.

By producing only a single timestamp and no proof of a parking duration beyond the mandatory consideration period, the operator has failed to evidence that a valid contract was ever formed with the driver. The law requires that a motorist be given sufficient time to read the terms, understand them, and make an informed decision whether to accept. Without evidence that the vehicle remained for longer than the minimum consideration period, there is no basis to conclude that any contract was entered into.

The operator is attempting to have it both ways: they wish to rely on PoFA to hold the keeper liable, which requires evidence of a defined parking period, yet at the same time they are relying on nothing more than a single instant in time to claim that a contract was entered into and breached. That is legally and logically unsustainable.

This is not about whether the vehicle was briefly observed on site. It is about whether the evidence demonstrates that the driver had sufficient time to read and accept the terms, which is essential for contract formation. A single timestamp does not prove that a parking period took place.

Therefore, even if every other element of the operator’s case were accepted (which they are not), their failure to show that the vehicle remained for longer than the minimum five-minute consideration period fatally undermines any claim that a binding contract was formed or that the PoFA requirements have been met.

3. No Evidence the Keeper was the Driver – Keeper Cannot Be Held Liable

MET has provided no evidence whatsoever that the appellant was the driver at the time of the alleged contravention. The identity of the driver has not been disclosed, and MET has not disputed this or provided any evidence to the contrary.

This leaves the operator with just one legal route: to pursue the registered keeper under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA). However, that mechanism only becomes available if the operator fully complies with every single mandatory condition set out in PoFA. As demonstrated earlier in point #1 of this appeal, the Notice to Keeper does not comply with a key requirements of PoFA, namely paragraph 9(2)(a), which requires that a “period of parking” be specified.

Therefore, by failing the overall test of absolute and unambiguous compliance with the statutory scheme, an analogy must be stated clearly: just as a person cannot be partially or even mostly pregnant, a Notice to Keeper cannot be partially or even mostly PoFA compliant. It is a binary point. It either is or it isn't — and in this case, it isn’t. That is the law.

This means MET cannot rely on PoFA to transfer liability to the keeper. With PoFA compliance off the table, the only remaining option would be to prove — with actual evidence — that the keeper was also the driver. They have not done so.

There is no legal presumption that the keeper was the driver. In VCS v Edward (2023) [H0KF6C9C], a persuasive County Court judgment in which HHJ Gargan explained precisely why it is not appropriate to infer driver identity from registered keeper status. MET has not presented any evidence to support such an inference.

POPLA is not entitled to make assumptions in the operator’s favour, nor is it permitted to apply a lower evidential threshold than the law requires. Keeper liability only arises if PoFA is complied with. It is not a default position, and it does not arise by implication.

Accordingly, the only lawful conclusion is that MET cannot pursue the appellant as keeper. There is no PoFA compliance, no driver identification, and therefore no legal basis for continuing enforcement of this charge.

4. Inadequate and Ambiguous Signage

The operator is put to strict proof of clear, prominent, and adequate signage in situ on the material date.

• MET must provide a detailed site plan showing the placement of each sign and legible images of the actual signs.
• They must prove that signage was visible, legible, and compliant with the Private Parking Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP), including font size, positioning, and the prominence of key terms.
• The photographs they have provided already show ambiguous and faded bay markings. No contract can be formed where terms such as “park only in marked bays” are not objectively clear.

5. Landowner Authority

The operator is put to strict proof of a valid, contemporaneous contract or lease flowing from the landowner that authorises the operator to manage parking, issue PCNs, and pursue legal action in its own name. I refer the operator and the POPLA assessor to Section 14 of the PPSCoP (Relationship with Landowner), which clearly sets out mandatory minimum requirements that must be evidenced before any parking charge may be issued on controlled land.

In particular, Section 14.1(a)–(j) requires the operator to have in place written confirmation from the landowner which includes:

• the identity of the landowner,
• a boundary map of the land to be managed,
• applicable byelaws,
• the duration and scope of authority granted,
• detailed parking terms and conditions including any specific permissions or exemptions,
• the means of issuing PCNs,
• responsibility for obtaining planning and advertising consents,
• and the operator’s obligations and appeal procedure under the Code.

These requirements are not optional. They are a condition precedent to issuing a PCN and bringing any associated action. Accordingly, I put the operator to strict proof of compliance with the entirety of Section 14 of the PPSCoP. Any document that contains redactions must not obscure the above conditions. The document must also be dated and signed by identifiable persons, with evidence of their authority to act on behalf of the parties to the agreement. The operator must provide an agreement showing clear authorisation from the landowner for this specific site.

Conclusion

For the reasons above:

• The NtK fails PoFA 2012 and cannot create keeper liability.
• The driver has not been identified.
• Signage and bay markings are inadequate and ambiguous.
• The operator has not proven landowner authority.
• The evidence fails to establish any parking event beyond the permitted consideration period.

Accordingly, I respectfully request that POPLA allow this appeal and direct that the charge be cancelled.

Your POPLA draft is on the right track and already covers the essential points, but I’d recommend tightening the language a little, so it reads more like a structured legal submission rather than a complaint letter. POPLA assessors tend to prefer clear, numbered grounds rather than commentary. Here’s a refined version of what you’ve drafted:

Quote

I am the registered keeper of the vehicle. I deny any liability for this parking charge and appeal in full.
The operator bears the burden of proof. They must establish that a contravention occurred, that a valid contract was formed between the operator and the driver, and that they have lawful authority to operate and issue Parking Charge Notices (PCNs) in their own name.

Accordingly, I put MET Parking Services to strict proof of the following:

1. Failure to Comply with PoFA 2012 – No Period of Parking Specified

The Notice to Keeper (NtK) does not comply with Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Paragraph 9(2)(a), which requires that a “period of parking” be specified.

MET Parking has only provided a single timestamp (16:57 on 21 June 2025) and vague wording about “the period of parking immediately prior to that time”. A single timestamp is not a period. This has been confirmed in the persuasive appellate case of Brennan v Premier Parking Solutions (2023) [H6DP632H], where the judge held that a single observation time cannot evidence a “period of parking” and thus the NtK was not PoFA-compliant.

Because the NtK is not compliant, MET cannot transfer liability to the keeper. The operator’s repeated assertions that their NtK is PoFA compliant do not make it so.

2. No Contract Could Have Been Formed – No Period of Parking Evidenced

The operator has failed to evidence any period of parking, instead relying on a single timestamp to justify the charge. This is completely inadequate and fails both the legal and contractual standards.

The operator has ignored the minimum consideration period that must be allowed under the Private Parking Single Code of Practice, section 5.1. That section states that operators must allow a reasonable consideration period for the driver to find the terms, read them, and either decide to accept and park or leave. This period is defined as a minimum of five minutes.

By producing only a single timestamp and no proof of a parking duration beyond the mandatory consideration period, the operator has failed to evidence that a valid contract was ever formed with the driver. The law requires that a motorist be given sufficient time to read the terms, understand them, and make an informed decision whether to accept. Without evidence that the vehicle remained for longer than the minimum consideration period, there is no basis to conclude that any contract was entered into.

The operator is attempting to have it both ways: they wish to rely on PoFA to hold the keeper liable, which requires evidence of a defined parking period, yet at the same time they are relying on nothing more than a single instant in time to claim that a contract was entered into and breached. That is legally and logically unsustainable.

This is not about whether the vehicle was briefly observed on site. It is about whether the evidence demonstrates that the driver had sufficient time to read and accept the terms, which is essential for contract formation. A single timestamp does not prove that a parking period took place.

Therefore, even if every other element of the operator’s case were accepted (which they are not), their failure to show that the vehicle remained for longer than the minimum five-minute consideration period fatally undermines any claim that a binding contract was formed or that the PoFA requirements have been met.

3. No Evidence the Keeper was the Driver – Keeper Cannot Be Held Liable

MET has provided no evidence whatsoever that the appellant was the driver at the time of the alleged contravention. The identity of the driver has not been disclosed, and MET has not disputed this or provided any evidence to the contrary.

This leaves the operator with just one legal route: to pursue the registered keeper under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA). However, that mechanism only becomes available if the operator fully complies with every single mandatory condition set out in PoFA. As demonstrated earlier in point #1 of this appeal, the Notice to Keeper does not comply with a key requirements of PoFA, namely paragraph 9(2)(a), which requires that a “period of parking” be specified.

Therefore, by failing the overall test of absolute and unambiguous compliance with the statutory scheme, an analogy must be stated clearly: just as a person cannot be partially or even mostly pregnant, a Notice to Keeper cannot be partially or even mostly PoFA compliant. It is a binary point. It either is or it isn't — and in this case, it isn’t. That is the law.

This means MET cannot rely on PoFA to transfer liability to the keeper. With PoFA compliance off the table, the only remaining option would be to prove — with actual evidence — that the keeper was also the driver. They have not done so.

There is no legal presumption that the keeper was the driver. In VCS v Edward (2023) [H0KF6C9C], a persuasive County Court judgment in which HHJ Gargan explained precisely why it is not appropriate to infer driver identity from registered keeper status. MET has not presented any evidence to support such an inference.

POPLA is not entitled to make assumptions in the operator’s favour, nor is it permitted to apply a lower evidential threshold than the law requires. Keeper liability only arises if PoFA is complied with. It is not a default position, and it does not arise by implication.

Accordingly, the only lawful conclusion is that MET cannot pursue the appellant as keeper. There is no PoFA compliance, no driver identification, and therefore no legal basis for continuing enforcement of this charge.

4. Inadequate and Ambiguous Signage

The operator is put to strict proof of clear, prominent, and adequate signage in situ on the material date.

• MET must provide a detailed site plan showing the placement of each sign and legible images of the actual signs.
• They must prove that signage was visible, legible, and compliant with the Private Parking Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP), including font size, positioning, and the prominence of key terms.
• The photographs they have provided already show ambiguous and faded bay markings. No contract can be formed where terms such as “park only in marked bays” are not objectively clear.

5. Landowner Authority

The operator is put to strict proof of a valid, contemporaneous contract or lease flowing from the landowner that authorises the operator to manage parking, issue PCNs, and pursue legal action in its own name. I refer the operator and the POPLA assessor to Section 14 of the PPSCoP (Relationship with Landowner), which clearly sets out mandatory minimum requirements that must be evidenced before any parking charge may be issued on controlled land.

In particular, Section 14.1(a)–(j) requires the operator to have in place written confirmation from the landowner which includes:

• the identity of the landowner,
• a boundary map of the land to be managed,
• applicable byelaws,
• the duration and scope of authority granted,
• detailed parking terms and conditions including any specific permissions or exemptions,
• the means of issuing PCNs,
• responsibility for obtaining planning and advertising consents,
• and the operator’s obligations and appeal procedure under the Code.

These requirements are not optional. They are a condition precedent to issuing a PCN and bringing any associated action. Accordingly, I put the operator to strict proof of compliance with the entirety of Section 14 of the PPSCoP. Any document that contains redactions must not obscure the above conditions. The document must also be dated and signed by identifiable persons, with evidence of their authority to act on behalf of the parties to the agreement. The operator must provide an agreement showing clear authorisation from the landowner for this specific site.

Conclusion

For the reasons above:

• The NtK fails PoFA 2012 and cannot create keeper liability.
• The driver has not been identified.
• Signage and bay markings are inadequate and ambiguous.
• The operator has not proven landowner authority.
• The evidence fails to establish any parking event beyond the permitted consideration period.

Accordingly, I respectfully request that POPLA allow this appeal and direct that the charge be cancelled.